The most optimistic come to believe in the possible « maturity» announced by those who will never set aside the sharia more rigorous since it is its irrevocable foundation; they are those who see the possibility that international pressure, even the collection of signatures for any reason, will make them reflect... At the opposite extreme, the most pessimistic, very realistic, some with experience on the ground, who do not believe the word of the Taliban, since they know about their lies from before and believe that they continue to lie today, and that they will only change apparently out of interest.
Debates now raised by the withdrawal (or flight?) of US forces, dragging the troops of their allies in their efforts. Some debates that would not take place without such an issue and even more so, without the chaos in Kabul. Without everything that has happened recently, Afghanistan would continue to remain in the limbo of ignorance; limbo in the conviction that all the objectives set, except for some specific contradictory event (generally violent) or for the complaint, not heard from some media, advanced in their official fulfillment. Western "ostrichism" It appears today very patent.
And now we confirm that this was not the case, and that all those who followed the pure and harsh militaristic line of the US in the jihadist counter-terrorist fight , are surprised (except for some who have already announced it, without being listened to) to find that this way of acting was not correct.
Current discussions On which certain specific circumstances are exerting constant pressure, for the time being (in turn the origin of specific debates such as open questions), mixing some known from old with others that have occurred:
- The situation of women and girls.
- Migrations that have already started.
- How to extract the collaborators that were left there.
- The road started towards a humanitarian crisis.
- How to get reliable information from the inside.
- To negotiate or not to negotiate with the future Taliban government.
- Recognize or not such a government.
- Presence or not of violent jihadism in its territory (Al Qaeda and the Islamic State).
- Geopolitical attitudes towards the situation (countries around them and interested powers).
- And more that we will surely get to know…
Debates, national and international, in which, apart from those who appreciate that everything was done well and that even the withdrawal, as far as possible, was perfect, a success , it seems that some want to impose themselves on others, especially in the political context, when here it is no longer about winning or losing but about learning.
Now what?
Is it possible to correct what has not been done, or what has been done with errors, for twenty years? No one knows, and less will be known as long as the debates continue on the obviousness of the situation (which is well known), on a future that, also for the moment, is only intuited, and at the same time, giving solutions, mere attempts , based on what we would like, without really knowing how to act immediately from reality.
And this will probably happen, as usually happens with all the problems that affect us from afar:pointing out the crisis, searching for those responsible, indicating possible solutions, continuity over time immediately with the morbidity of some individual situations, and, over time, oblivion...
Few are dedicated to clearly rethinking, without outside influences, what has really happened, or better, what has been done wrong, where is the error or the mistakes made looking for solutions to learn, from the experience, not to make them again. But what to rethink specifically?
There are already voices, which come from afar, stating that, in the type of actions against jihadist terrorism or related violence, it is not much use in the long term to act only on the military front , lacking or developing little on the structural front and nothing on the ideological front. Fronts that should always be present complementing each other in coordinated action, in unity of action, by all the intervening actors, without the presence of "false gods" who, with their interests, commit us to a wrong path.
And there begins another debate that is very much against the idea recently exposed by the US that its presence in Afghanistan was not to build a country but to defeat terrorism; a terrorism that has not been subdued after so many years and that continues to grow in other countries in which the militarist solution has been applied and continues to be applied above all others.
And for this debate to be adequate, we must therefore consider what has to be said on each front, not only theoretically or didactically speaking, but bearing in mind what has been lived.
The military front
The military front or operational front, as is known, welcomes the fight against terrorist actions and their effects, and is in charge, as a priority, of the Security Forces and Bodies of the State with the Information/Intelligence Services. Front in which, in addition, we must count on the action of the forces of the affected country , which, given their precariousness and lack of training in combating terrorist militias, must receive the support of foreign forces (which must adapt to the territory) in terms of information/intelligence, training/instruction, weapons and means of combat, as well as with participation in joint operations. Therefore, a front in which the executive actions against terrorists are determined (actions to be applied in the short, medium and long term) taking into account that they must be in constant evolution in step with the changes in structure, forms of action, techniques and procedures. of the violent or terrorist group in question.
Also, keep in mind that an army or police force can be equipped and trained to fight terrorism, but if a commitment to fight is not achieved accompanied by a strong determination or morale to fight against the enemy that they are still afraid of (in some cases stemming from threats to their families), nothing will have been achieved, especially considering that in the future, more or less near, when such forces had to fight alone (and without air support), corruption has been allowed within them, especially among their commanders, and if the government in power lies about the real entity of its forces.
The structural front
Regarding the structural front, it must be borne in mind that its objective is to enable countries affected by the aforementioned violence to solve their political, economic and social problems, and religious in their case, without forgetting the judicial, educational, press and communications system..., advancing towards democratic solidity (in their own style, without having to copy other people's models) that provides them with sufficient stability, their own and regional; Sufficient stability so that vulnerabilities do not develop that could be exploited by violent groups and jihadism, as they are currently doing. Stability to be achieved with clear, constant and determining objectives and without leaving its development in the sole and directing hands of the military. Thus, in order to resolve this front, it will be necessary to improve infrastructures, promote modern and efficient management systems for existing resources and chronic conflicts (ethnic, tribal...), discarding all traditional inertia and those based on the Western vision as superior in everything to that of the supported; context in which the knowledge, ideas and projects of the "invaded" come to be despised. It is already about "teaching them (really) to fish instead of giving them fish."
In short, the action on this structural front must change significantly, considering out of any possible colonialist inertia, of any feeling of superiority and thinking more from within the country to help than from outside; approach that must be sought, from an equal collaboration between local and foreign partners, and without impediments to projects for "their" own development. Reason why, when analyzing the problems, one must think/reason like those who suffer from them, avoiding all symptoms of imposition (so it should not be said that foreign forces are there to bring them to democracy, to ´their` democracy, Christian/Western of course, forgetting the importance of Islam in its policies). Thus, with the structural changes appropriate to each environment, changes, through the application of fair and egalitarian policies, in education, provision of livelihoods, food and health security, etc., the way, to the reality of being and feeling integrated citizens.
The ideological front
And regarding the ideological front (which must never be forgotten), which embraces the causes and evolution of violence, it has to combat philosophy, the imaginary, the base theory that points out the aspirations of the violent, what motivates and justifies them. Front in which models of action on armed and terrorist groups are produced according to the fundamental ideas with which they explain what they are, what they want and what they do. Front in which the influences of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State must also be analyzed, of their particular adaptations to the areas in which they are located. Analyzes in which, fundamentally, we must always keep in mind the participation of Muslims opposed to violence (especially their imams) to make them see that they are wrong in their interpretation of Islam, and, therefore, of the policy followed .
Conclusions
All fronts, operational, structural and ideological, the first dedicated to security, the second to development, and the third to the support of both, which, for their effective action, must be complementary in everything, with an application at the same time, completing each other, but taking into account that action on the military front is the most immediate in the face of constant pressure from violence, while action on the structural and ideological front is slower results.
Furthermore, in this line of complementarity, it must be taken into account thatinoperability on one of the fronts can lead to the collapse of everything that has been done , especially with the abandonment of the military front; collapse, of which the recent withdrawal/flight of US and allied forces from Afghanistan is a good example.
We therefore know that the current situation is complex to analyze, not only for Afghanistan, and that it is difficult to reverse in the face of a future, unpredictable for some, predictable for other futurists, however , reality has to push us to react, without excessive theorizing, without so much debate of the obvious, in a well-informed debate to try to stick as soon as possible to the most correct resolution possible, regardless of interests, of "WHAT'S HERE IT'S ABOUT”.